IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.04.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY C.M.P.No.7246 of 2025 in Rev.Appl.Sr.No.42130 of 2025 against W.A.No.82 of 2021 K.Vishwa .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel)

College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

2. The Chief Educational Officer Ranipettai, Ranipettai District. .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 1424 days in filing the review application for review of the judgment dated 23.03.2021 made in W.A.No.82 of

2021.

For the Petitioner : Mr.P.Murali ORDER (Order of the Court was authored by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

Though this petition has been filed to condone the delay of

1424 days in filing Rev.Appl.Sr.No.42130 of 2025, whether such huge delay could be condoned was examined by us in the context of the merits of the case in the main review application, that is Rev.Appl.Sr.No.42130 of 2025.

2. Before the Division Bench, the order passed by the Writ Court dated 04.11.2020 in W.P.No.13601 of 2020 came up for consideration. By the said order, the Writ Court in fact allowed the said writ petition filed by the present petitioner for providing the job on compassionate ground. Aggrieved over the same, the employer had preferred the writ appeal. While considering the said writ appeal, the Division Bench has considered the scope of the claim made on behalf of the writ petitioner.

3. The fact remains that the father of the writ petitioner died in the year 2012 while he was in service. The widow of the deceased, within three years' period, though made an application seeking compassionate appointment to his son, who is the writ petitioner, he was only twelve years old at that time. Therefore, after he attained majority, that is after six years, such plea since has been raised, which was not considered or considered in the negative sense. Therefore, aggrieved over the same, the writ petitioner had moved the said writ petition, where he became successful. Assailing the said order, when the appeal was moved, the Division Bench considered the Rule position that was prevailing at that time, where the prescription was that no application seeking compassionate appointment could be made by any person or on behalf of any person who have not completed eighteen years of age, in other words, no minor could make an application or on behalf of the minor, no application could be made to seek compassionate appointment.

4. It is an admitted case here that at the time of making the application, the job seeker, that is the writ petitioner, was only twelve years old and after six years only he attained majority. Therefore, that kind of directions given by the Writ Court to give compassionate appointment was not acceptable. Hence, the Division Bench interfered with the said judgment of the Writ Court and allowed the writ appeal filed by the employer through the order dated 23.03.2021, which is sought to be reviewed in the main review application.

5. We have heard Mr.P.Murali, learned counsel for the petitioner, who also made a plea on equity to state that there has been no breadwinner in the family as the sole breadwinner died suddenly, therefore, the family is under indigent circumstances. Hence, relaxation could be given by the employer, as the application seeking compassionate appointment was made within three years' period and unfortunately, the job seeker was only a minor at that time. Naturally, he had to wait till he reaches the majority and on attaining majority, the application ought to have been considered. Therefore, the non-consideration of the application has been rightly interfered with by the Writ Court, however, the said order has been reversed by the Division Bench, where the penurious circumstances of the family of the writ petitioner as well as the relevant Rule position under the Government Order issued in this regard, which was prevailin